Some in the blogosphere have raised questions about Olbermann’s role at the site, which describes itself as “a Democratic blog, a partisan blog.” Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters writes, “Consider again the media firestorm that would come from (Brit) Hume or (Chris) Wallace doing the same thing at a conservative website. Think such a demonstration of rightwing bias and partisanship would raise a few eyebrows?”

I don’t even know what to say to this.

(Deep Breath)

Hume and Wallace writing on little green footballs would not cause a firestorm. It would not raise eyebrows. Why?

Does anyone think that Olberman, Hume, and Wallace lack bias? That they are inhuman machines whirring away, delivering us their objective take on the news? Or perhaps, just maybe, is it possible that all three bring distinctly different biases to the table, that these biases are obvious, and that posting to a blog isn’t the shattering indication of partisanship SteveK at TVNewser seems to think it is?

We are talking about Hume, the man who has given sympathetic interviews to Darth Cheney. If he posted to a blog, the reaction would not be “See? He is biased after all! He posted on the internets!”. That would be [searching for a word here…] profoundly idiotic.

I’ll start caring about complaints of Olbermann’s bias when the MSM stops pretending that “unbiased” means presenting opposing views as equally credible, rather than actually investigating the truth of claims.

“Unbiased,” as currently practiced, lead us into the Iraq war. I’d prefer honesty and real discussion to generic parroting of talking points.